Gun control foes take Brady complaints to Supreme Court

December 2, 1996
Web posted at: 6:30 p.m. EST

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Gun control opponents go before the Supreme Court Tuesday, arguing that the Brady gun control law is unconstitutional. The case could affect the reach of federal power over the states.

Montana Sheriff Jay Printz and Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack charge that Congress exceeded its power to direct local law enforcement officials in their duties.

"I just run my Brady background check forms from my fax machine to my shredder. I don't do them."

-- Sheriff Jay Printz

Ravalli County, Montana

They claim the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violates the Constitution's 10th Amendment, which protects state and local governments from certain federal interference.

But the National Rifle Association charges the federal government with overstepping its bounds. The group wants the high court to throw out the waiting period as well as the background checks.

The law requires a five-day waiting period before the sale
of a handgun. During that time, local sheriffs must check on
whether the prospective buyer has a felony record, a history of mental illness or drug use or other problems that would bar the sale.

It was the first gun-control measure passed by Congress
since 1968. A ban on certain types of assault weapons has since been approved as well.

Mack contends the law forces him to divert deputies from
crime-fighting duties with "no benefit to his office or his
county." Mack was defeated in September by a candidate who said the sheriff's campaign against the Brady law kept him from fighting crime at home. He leaves office in January.

The local background checks were intended as an interim
measure until a national computerized system becomes fully
operational in late 1998.

While a court ruling against Brady now would not necessarily end the curbs on handguns, it would be a psychological blow to gun control.

Correspondent Anthony Collings and Reuters contributed to this report.